***Yo*** Democrats in stronger position to take the House: CBS News Battleground Tracker

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Democrats have improved their standing in the fight for control of the House of Representatives. Our House model now shows the party poised to win 222 seats if the election were today, up from our estimate of 219 earlier this summer. The range on that estimate is plus or minus 11 seats, or 5% of House seats. It reflects the political reality that many contests are still toss-ups and that Republicans are still in a position to hold the House, if a less comfortable one. Even if Democrats' seat gains are in the double digits, there are plausible scenarios in which Republicans hang on to control.




https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-battleground-tracker-poll-democrats-in-stronger-position-to-take-the-house/

VOTE

[Oneironaut]

1. I won't be happy until Nov 7.

All polls before then are simply noise.

[irresistable]

2. The number for Democrats will continue to rise...

....as will the fear in Republicans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Hopefully.

[irresistable]

4. Trump and Giuliani would have to at least temporarily behave as rational, decent human beings...

to even blunt the momentum. That does not seem to be happening. Trump calling John Dean a "rat" was a nice touch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I like the cut of your jib. I never liked Giuliani but he's shaming himself.

Welcome to DU.

[UTUSN]

6. This CBS poll honcho/Anthony SALVANTO has been all over saying Blue Wave will be minimal

He's got a book Where Did You Get That Number? and says *tracking* polls are what work, why 2016 was bad, etc., tracking the SAME people constantly for shifts, not going by national margins, each individual race separately on its own (each congressional race, etc) . I like what he's saying here in the o.p., but not in everything over the past few weeks. I'll look for the links.

[qazplm135]

7. sure

because he buys into the idea that 2016 was a trend, not a blip.

it was a blip. A whole host of factors had to come into play to make it happen. Very few of those factors remain.
Hillary isn't running in 2018. Trump isn't a showman who is secretly competent. We don't have the lack of enthusiasm on our side combined with great enthusiasm on theirs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Presidential elections are more volatile because there is a hyper focus on two candidates.

In that vein there won't be a Comey who can cast a cloud on the entire Democratic party ten days before the election. Also, all the good news for Trump is baked in. GOP candidates have a lot of exposure; Trump can tweet something stupid, an N word tape might appear, Mueller could make a move.

[UTUSN]

10. The Hillary who got three million more popular votes - that one?!1

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. We're conflating lots of different things

Pop Vote
Electoral College
Congressional districts


All i know is that Salvanto guy gives us a 79% chance of taking back the House.

[UTUSN]

17. My point is what he's saying today is not his yesterday's. He does tracking polls.

**********QUOTE*********

https://nypost.com/2018/08/18/cbs-news-pollster-reveals-why-blue-wave-is-unlikely/

CBS News pollster reveals why ‘blue wave’ is unlikely

.... A tracking poll sets up a panel of thousands of voters and returns to them repeatedly over months. That lets pollsters discern the factors driving voter decisions — and gauge how attitudes change as the campaign wears on. In 2016, only two major surveys’ final predictions foresaw a Trump victory. Both of them — from the LA Times/USC and IBD/TIPP — were tracking polls. ....

Just as a presidential race is not a national contest but a collection of 51 separate elections (one for each state and for the District of Columbia), November’s midterm involves elections for 435 House districts and 35 Senate seats. The collective result will determine which party gains enough seats to control each congressional chamber.

“For pollsters, midterms are the most interesting and difficult challenge we face,” Salvanto said.

Not only must they consider 470 unique races, “there’s never more than a third or at best 40 percent turnout in midterm elections,” he noted. “So we’re looking for a subsample of a subsample” of voters. ....


“Right now I think this election looks like a toss-up,” Salvanto said. “We see a Democrat pickup in the House of Representatives in the 20-odd seat range, but Republicans could certainly hold on to the House.” The GOP holds a slim 43-seat House majority, with six vacancies.

“Even though Republicans have not fared well in special elections so far this cycle, it does look like they will be turning out for the midterms,” Salvanto said. “So far we do not see a large number of Republicans saying they will flip and vote for a Democrat.” ....

*********UNQUOTE******

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Two points

1) The LATimesUSC panel was a joke. They had Trump winning the popular vote by three points.
2) Salvanto seems confused:

Link to tweet

[Awsi Dooger]

21. The LaTimes/USC version is extremely interesting

Nobody is claiming it is a finished product. But polling is not perfectly sophisticated and I applaud any method to improve matters.

Instead of randomly sampling different Americans every time the LATimes/USC model keeps the same 3000-4000 people every time and samples them regularly to see if anything has changed, and why. That's exactly what I did on a much smaller scale in the late '90s and into the 2000s when I invited the same group of people to the debate watching parties at my house in Las Vegas. I usually had a group between 8-18 friends and acquaintances, along with sometimes their family members or significant others. It was immensely instructive and often gave me insights into important changing variables that the pundits and pollsters weren't focusing on at all.

Granted, I was doing it primarily for betting purposes but after a while I found it more interesting as a learning process than as a gambler.

There has to be something better than taking a different block of voters each time and robotically asking them, "Who will you vote for?" The LATimes/USC model asks people to rate their level of enthusiasm and likelihood to vote from 0-1000. When I heard about that two years ago I thought it was a fantastic breakthrough. You aren't treating tepid reluctant support the same as absolute gung ho.

That LATimes/USC model did pick up on one important thing in 2016, despite missing the bottom line popular vote margin: Throughout the process it indicated that Trump supporters were more enthusiastic about voting than other surveys were giving credit for, while many Hillary supporters preferred her but were not guaranteed to vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. The challenge with longitudinal panels are they can suffer from the observer effect.

Also if the initial panel is bad the results will be irretrievably tainted.

There was a lot of discussion about the LAT/USC panel.

[UTUSN]

22. His key word: "current". In his system, "today." His system isn't next week/month.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. It's a dynamic model. But as of today the Dems have a 79% chance of winning the House.

That's certainly not a tossup nor is it doubtful they will win the House.

[UTUSN]

28. For him it was a toss up his previous day. Also he previously said Repukes might hold House.

And this dude might very well find something "dynamically" different every week through November. Wherever you're drawing from to build your doubtlessness on, it's not from this dude's system. I'm checking out of the argument.

[redstatebluegirl]

8. Do not read polls, get out the vote!!!!

[Scurrilous]

12. K&R

[Norbert]

13. Anything under 235 seats would be a disappointment

IMHP


After 2016 I take these polls with a grain of salt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Anything over 218 gives us control of the House

It means no legislation that we don't approve of likely never gets to the Senate.

[Norbert]

15. I want the TOP beaten into submission

They need to pay for being tRump lap dogs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. That's the icing on the cake.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. 538 moves upward on Democratic chance to take House

Nothing dramatic but it is 75.3% now compared to 74.6% a few days ago on debut:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

I'll take any type of upward movement like that. Subtle wins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. This is a great precautionary quote

Link to tweet

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Great tweet...I've lost more than my share of 75% and up

Sports more than politics but they still sting and are burned into memory. One time I had a golfer named Steve Jones with an 18 stroke lead in a golf matchup (one guy to finish ahead of another) and only 6 holes to play on Sunday. His opponent had finished the round while Jones was tied for the lead.

How can I possibly lose, right? Here's how: Jones hit his tee shot on a long tight par 3 and pulled it badly. It went into the brushy junk left of the green. Jones had a notorious temper. He thought it was out of bounds. So in a fit of rage he quickly teed up another ball and hit it flush into the middle of the green.

One minor problem. The marshall at greenside walked into the brush and found Jones' original ball...in serious trouble but also safely in bounds.

Steve Jones was disqualified for having two balls in play at the same time. He had neglected to hold up the second call on the tee box and announce that it was a provisional, just in case his first ball was indeed inbounds.

I lose the wager. First matchup criteria is completed holes. Other guy had 72 and Jones had 66.

Nice. That was something like 1993 and I still retain every detail.

And it's the reason I don't get carried away with 75% or thereabouts. Lots of ways for the underdog split to prevail. Impossible variables show up. That's why future book numbers have to be somewhat low on huge favorites, i.e. some "play" in the number.

People who have never speculated seem to view anything 60% or above as a dead-nut certainty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Do you think the fact that net wage growth is stagnant if not declining

Do you think the fact that net wage growth is stagnant if not declining mitigates the effect of positive GDP growth ?

[Awsi Dooger]

30. That is hardly my area of expertise

I could probably post a bullshit reply that might sound like I knew what I was talking about, but I'd be laughing as soon as I hit the "post my reply" button

[ucrdem]

26. Hey that's great.

I imagine there are a few October surprises ahead but we'll cross those weiners when we come to them

[Hortensis]

29. It's ours to VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!!!